By the way, I found the previous post (with blue, pink & green color coding) simply looking up who were the main speakers (“Witnesses”) for the House Ways and Means Committee’s hearing to authorize more HR 2979, Fatherhood Funding (“Innovative” of course).

Just a bit of housekeeping here: (from a pingback, someone co-opted the content).

A – House of Reps H.R. 2979

I had complained that we (noncustodial or embattled in the courts mothers) hadn’t received much warning about it. OPEN CONGRESS also mentions, it wasn’t exactly in the news:

Recent News Coverage

Hmmmm, no news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number (for example, “H.R. 3200”) or title (for example, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”). As soon as that changes, our daily automated search across the Web will catch it and include it here. If this bill is of interest to you, you can write a letter to the editor referring to this bill by name, and if your letter is published on the Web, a link back your letter will appear here within about one day. Or, if you know of a news article about this bill to display here, email us the web address of this page and the web address of your suggested news article: // writeus@opencongress.org Our editorial team will post relevant links as quickly as possible. Thanks for helping to build public knowledge about Congress.

59.S.RES.560 : A resolution recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.Sponsor:Sen Bayh, Evan [IN] (introduced 6/17/2010) Cosponsors (7)Committees: Senate JudiciaryLatest Major Action: 6/21/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

June 17, 2010

June 21, 2010

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their families, especially on Father’s Day.

Whereas responsible fatherhood is a priority for the United States;

Whereas the most important factor in the upbringing of a child is whether the child is brought up in a healthy and supportive environment;

Whereas father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children;

Whereas research shows that men are more likely to live healthier, longer, and more fulfilling lives when they are involved in the lives of their children and participate in caregiving;

Whereas programs to encourage responsible fatherhood should promote and provide support services for–

(1) fostering loving and healthy relationships between parents and children; and

(2) increasing the responsibility of noncustodial parents for the long-term care and financial well-being of their children;

Whereas research shows that working with men and boys to change attitudes towards women can have a profound impact on reducing violence against women;

Whereas research shows that women are significantly more satisfied in relationships when responsible fathers participate in the daily care of children;

Whereas children around the world do better in school and are less delinquent when fathers participate closely in their lives;

Whereas responsible fatherhood is an important component of successful development policies and programs in countries throughout the world;

Whereas the United States Agency for International Development recognizes the importance of caregiving fathers for more stable and effective development efforts; and

Whereas Father’s Day is the third Sunday in June: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate–

(1) recognizes June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day;

(2) honors the men in the United States and around the world who are active in the lives of their children, which in turn, has a significant impact on their children, their families, and their communities;

(3) underscores the need for increased public awareness and activities regarding responsible fatherhood and healthy families; and

(4) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to supporting and encouraging global fatherhood initiatives that significantly benefit international development efforts.

B – SENATE

(well, you can look it up. I think we get the general idea!)

SOCIAL SCIENCE – 2 COLUMBIA UNIV.

The “Center for Fathers, Children, and Family Well-Being” has two highly-educated principal investigators: this is Dr. Ronald Mincy (who was a Witness from Panel 2) on H.R. 2979, which explains how I found the article surveying the effect of Father closeness on Young Adult Daughter etcetera….

Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice

A.B., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT.

He is wellpublished and highly qualified for the social science work, as listed here:

Dr. Ronald Mincy joined the School of Social Work faculty in 2001; he teaches Introduction to Social Welfare Policy, Program Evaluation, and Advanced Methods in Policy Analysis. He came to the University from the Ford Foundation where he served as a senior program officer and worked on such issues as improving U.S. social welfare policies for low-income fathers, especially child support, and workforce development policies; he also served on the Clinton Administration’s Welfare Reform Task Force.

He is a member of the MacArthur Network on the Family and the Economy, Chicago, IL. He is also an advisory board member for the National Poverty Center, University of Michigan; Technical Work Group for the Building Strong Families and Community Healthy Marriage Initiatives; the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative; Transition to Fatherhood, Cornell University; the National Fatherhood Leaders Group; the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Harlem Children’s Zone; and The Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts.

Dr. Mincy is also a former member of the Council, National Institute of Child and Human Development and the Policy Council, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, co-chair of the Grantmakers Income Security Taskforce, a Board Member of the Grantmakers for Children, Youth, and Families.

Other staff come from Smith, Barnard, Harvard Graduate School of Education, NYU, and Kenyon.

SOCIAL SCIENCE 3: ADD PRINCETON, and then some..

The other co-principal investigator of Fragile Families. But THEY add work from PRINCETON, and a $17 million grant from Eunice Shriver Foundation. and plenty more, including government agencies. The word “Fragile” means UNMARRIED

Ph.D. 1979 University of Texas, Sociology. Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs at Princeton University; Faculty Associate of the Office of Population Research; founder and Director of the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. Interests: Child development, child wellbeing, parenting, education, poverty, and family and community influences on the development of young children. PI on the “Fragile Families Study.

A list of other research associates makes one feel that the field to be in is CERTAINLY Sociology or Psychology these days….

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is following a cohort of nearly 5,000 children born in large U.S. cities between 1998 and 2000 (roughly three-quarters of whom were born to unmarried parents). We refer to unmarried parents and their children as “fragile families” to underscore that they are families and that they are at greater risk of breaking up and living in poverty than more traditional
families.

The core FF Study was designed to primarily address four questions of great interest to researchers and policy makers: (1) What are the conditions and capabilities of unmarried parents, especially fathers?; (2) What is the nature of the relationships between unmarried parents?; (3) How do children born into these families fare?; and (4) How do policies and environmental conditions affect families and children?

The Study consists of interviews with both mothers and fathers at birth and again when children are ages one, three and five, plus in-home assessments of children and their home environments at ages thr

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing in Middle Childhood Study recently received a $17 million grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) to field a nine-year follow-up. This project combines the core telephone surveys, in-home study, and teacher surveys into one larger project. Data collection began in 2007 and will continue through 2010.

The Study contributes to the teaching/training mission of CRCW by hosting bi-monthly workshops and courses for faculty and students at Princeton and Columbia University. The Study has also sponsored several summer workshops at Columbia University. Finally, Princeton undergraduates use these data for their senior theses, under the guidance of CRCW faculty.

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study contributes to the policy mission of CRCW by publishing research briefs that translate working papers into information that is useful to policy makers and practitioners. The Study also provides useful information to foundations, government agencies and NGOs working to improve the conditions of children in New Jersey: see Children’s Futures and Fragile Families in Urban Essex .

The Principal Investigators of the Fragile Families Study are Sara McLanahan and Christina Paxson at Princeton University and Irwin Garfinkel, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Ron Mincy, and Jane Waldfogel at Columbia University.

POPULATION RESEARCH, FUNDED BY FEDRAL $$ and private foundations

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT MARRIAGE IS GOOD FOR PEOPLE. FOR SOME PEOPLE, IT’S GOOD. FOR OTHERS, IT’S DEADLY.

THE QUESTION IS, WHEN, HOW, AND WHY DID OUR GOVERNMENT START PLAYING SOCIAL SCIENTIST (OR PSYCHOLOGIST) WITH ITS CITIZENS. IT’S A NO-BRAINER TO ME THAT THERE ARE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH FEDERAL FUNDS THAN COMPROMISE DUE PROCESS TO GET AN “OUT-COME BASED” LEGAL PROCESS, THEREBY DESTROYING THE CONCEPT OF LEGAL PROCESS TO START WITH.

“Marriage promotion” represents a cornerstone of social conservatives’ domestic policy agenda, and proposals designed to promote and strengthen marriage are gaining currency at all levels of government. Since taking office, President Bush has promised to invest in marriage promotion on an unprecedented scale through his proposal to reauthorize the nation’s welfare reform law, and legislation pending before Congress would allocate substantial funding toward that end. Yet even as the president waits for Congress to act, his administration is finding ways to devote significant funding to marriage promotion activities through existing programs and funding streams.

The very question of government involvement in this area provokes strong reactions among players representing a wide range of interests and ideologies. The sexual and reproductive health community potentially has much to contribute to debates over policies and programs designed to promote or maintain the formation of intimate relationships that are healthy and stable—whether married or otherwise. To date, however, sexual and reproductive health advocates and practitioners largely have sat on the sidelines of this important social policy debate.

The Politics of Marriage

The federal government first began promoting marriage as a matter of public policy through the 1996 welfare reform law. Based on the argument that the existing welfare system provided a disincentive to marriage and undermined the traditional family structure by encouraging out-of-wedlock births among poor women, three of the four purposes of the 1996 law were designed to promote marriage. Notably, however, these marriage promotion goals permitted the states to spend their welfare block grant funds on marriage promotion activities targeting not only welfare recipients but all Americans.

Although conservatives applauded the 1996 law’s success in promoting “work over welfare,” many felt that it had failed to live up to its promise to promote marriage. Accordingly, President Bush, shortly after taking office, pledged to devote unprecedented attention and resources to marriage promotion activities. Since then, the House of Representatives twice passed welfare reauthorization proposals that would make good on the president’s promise, but the more moderate Senate’s attempts to move similar legislation fell apart over issues unrelated to marriage. Following the 2004 election, which broadened the conservative margin in Congress, both the House and Senate Republican leadership announced in January that Congress now would move swiftly to enact welfare legislation that would devote $200 million per year for “healthy marriage promotion grants” as well as $100 million per year for marriage-related research and demonstration projects.

The Bush administration, however, has not been idly awaiting congressional action on this front. According to various estimates, the administration during its first term tapped existing programs and funding streams to spend $90–200 million for dedicated marriage promotion activities and related research. Meanwhile, according to an April 2004 report by the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), a growing number of states have begun to sponsor marriage promotion activities, such as premarital counseling, school-based marriage education, and education and support services to married couples; seven states already commit a significant portion of their federal welfare block grant funding to such types of activities.

Ideology, Research & Reactions

For many social conservatives, promoting heterosexual marriage goes hand in hand with fierce opposition to the formal sanctioning of homosexual unions, in the name of “protecting” marriage. It also falls under the umbrella of a larger ideological and religiously motivated policy agenda that includes teaching young people that remaining abstinent outside of marriage is the expected standard of behavior and that supports channeling substantial funding to faith-based organizations to achieve these related policy goals.

For these social conservatives, little further justification for governmental marriage promotion may be necessary. The fact is, however, that they also can point to an established and growing body of research showing that marriage is good for individuals, particularly children. Married people are healthier, live longer and have higher earnings than single people. Children raised in married, two-parent families, moreover, are five times less likely to be poor than those raised by a single parent; they are also less likely to drop out of school or become a teen parent. Moreover, it would appear that it is not just the presence of two parents in the home that matters—children raised by their married, biological parents have better developmental outcomes than children who grow up with stepparents, and often with unmarried, cohabiting parents. (It is also worth noting, however, that high-conflict {{or VIOLENT…}} marriages, and the stress and loss of parental income associated with divorce, can adversely affect both children and adults.)

At the same time, an array of progressive constituencies either express concern about the potential form that government efforts to promote marriage may take, or question the notion of governmental involvement in this area entirely. Common concerns include that such policies have the potential to denigrate women by reinforcing outdated gender roles; may harm victims of domestic violence by encouraging them to remain in abusive relationships; and may push teens and young adults prematurely into marriages that tend to be unstable and leave them at increased risk of poverty and reduced educational attainment when those relationships dissolve. For some, marriage promotion policies simply place government in the inappropriate position of promoting a particular moral or religious viewpoint—one that sanctions some forms of intimate relationships while denigrating others.,

Before joining Guttmacher, Mrs. Dailard was associate director for domestic policy for President Bill Clinton, legislative assistant and counsel for Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and a fellow at the National Women’s Law Center.

She was a board member of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

Mrs. Dailard was critical of a national movement to encourage abstinence-only pledges by teenagers without more comprehensive instruction in sexual health. She said those teenagers who vow chastity are less likely to use contraception when they have sex.

“It’s hard to keep a condom in your pocket when you’ve promised not to have sex,” she said.

Cynthia Boles was a native of Syosset, N.Y., and a 1990 graduate of Harvard University. She was a 1994 graduate of the University of California at Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. She lived in Washington.

Survivors include her husband of 14 years, Scott Dailard, and their two daughters, Miranda Dailard and Julia Dailard, all of Washington; her mother, Ellen Boles of Syosset; a sister, Sandra Boles of Potomac; and a grandmother.”

The Guttmacher Policy Review and its readers recently suffered a tremendous blow. On December 24, 2006, at the age of 38, one of our most prolific and accomplished authors, Cynthia Dailard, died suddenly. Trained as a lawyer and seasoned through her work on Capitol Hill and in the White House, Cynthia, who joined the Guttmacher Institute’s policy staff in 1998, was a disciplined, rigorous analyst and a compelling communicator. She seamlessly blended an authoritative knowledge of research–and an inherent feel for the power it can have in policy formulation–with an insider’s …

“GO TO” Widget for: Current Posts (12 Sticky on top:–>incl. Tables Of Contents and Other Featured Posts marked ‘Sticky’) (This one “Widget” holds Ten Boxes=Doorways to other posts or pages). Last Updated 21 Dec. 2019.

**Below Twelve (12) "Sticky" (pinned) posts, several of which are Tables of Contents. {{TOCs 2019 So Far, 2018 and 2017 (wh/contains earlier ones) also listed separately, below on this Widget}}. Generally, for the most recent posts (access individually) scroll down on this sidebar to 'The Ten Most Recent 'Let's Get Honest' Posts' widget, which updates automatically, further below on this sidebar.

(This is the blog's standing, Static 'Current Posts' Page where all posts are shown, so its case-sensitive short-link (being a 'Page') ends 'PsBXH-8v2')

(This post finishes off-ramping four previously-shortened-version text widgets (with some July, 2019, updates), the title names them. Former versions of them were previously saved by posting in full on one or the other of the first two links above (with the word "Sidebar" in their titles) (links to full versions also stored on this post). THIS POST ALSO holds my narrative lead-in and footnotes around 'BMTP' (Battered Mothers Testimony Project){{=pdf of its Final Rept 2002}} at Wellesley Centers For Women, leading to my strongly-worded disclaimer/commentary on how, while misogyny (overall) is real and systemic, I disagree w standard feminist (so-called) domestic violence advocacy's protocol response to handling of Violence Against Women and Child Abuse 'IN the Family Courts'). Drill-down started led to better understanding of 1985ff (now, as 2 merged centers) WC4W's historic psychoanalysis/ psychology focus and funders of this influential, well-endowed, private, Boston-area, all-woman college's influential reporting (2002, example shown), effectively driving DV and VAWA policy. Still investigating... (see also Kathleen Stone Kaufmann, Wellesley '67(?) + her parents' "Stone Endowmt Fund")

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be! **

**Summer, 2019, Update/s: This widget formerly called "Contributions Welcome & Needed/Thanks." Its full contents are now on a separate post (linked above and below) and I'm deciding how much, if any, of this one to keep in place here..//LGH.

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn't be!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can Show Others, and to notify those playing certain games, "you've been flagged."

Heard of "disruptive technologies?" Disruptive innovations?
Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who've already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don't do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.

Despite the blog's appearance, I know what I'm doing! You're looking at long-term leverage, in the hands of the "non-experts," in the public interest, not public funded propaganda to drive business to private pockets. Hence, I'm not afraid to ask:

The formula for this public/private business model isn't really that complex, but the concept itself was just so devious, insidious, parasitic, grandiose, and by now, so baked into the economic, institutional infrastructure, people either don't notice, or, in a common, cowardly, but all too human response they see, and just start denying, or looking for nicer explanations of an ugly truth -- where it's heading. For lack of nicer, but still honest terms, it's heading towards yet more slavery (and tolerating it) and genocide (and tolerating it). [[2019 comments: and the ability to drive the U.S., in particular, into even more, bigger, and more costly/dangerous wars, discrediting us (further) internationally. But I wrote this sidebar many years ago..]]

As a woman, mother, a family court and domestic violence survivor [yes, he was a hitter, and more], who has already 'faced the music' in more ways than I can count, to the best of my ability, I do not do "denial." I also ask the public, what's left of it, to just not go down that Denial Road, and with it lose more of their innate humanity, perception, and ethics. There is another way out, one with a conscience:

Really want system change? Make up your mind to understand government financing -- change yourself first. Find and read your local "CAFR" (government's Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports), a wonderful source of information, with flow chart, descriptions of component or blended government units it's reporting on, and reporting the balances in each fund -- ever heard of a "Balance Sheet"? Looking for this also reveals just how many governmental business entities ARE there? Find them. Read. Think about what you see. What does it mean?

Governments tend to pool their investments, for example, "CALPERS" (essentially created ca. 1931) is the largest "public pension" investing platform around, or at least in the country. Getting started earlier sure helped, then adding players (subscribers) over time ALSO did. In 1985, add "CII" Council on Institutional Investors (members: in 31states and D.C.) (LA Times 1985 article on Calif. Politician (state treasurer, assembly speaker) Unruh whose idea it was for the Council so institutional funds could "flex their muscle"; and push for corporate governance reform. CII members now control $3 trillion of assets)-- my point being, government holdings are invested and when pooled like this, are major clout, but the average person never reads even a single government entity's annual financial reports to take a look. (I wasn't aware of them til 2012!)

Governments not only invest their funds in business, they also by legislation, patenting, and protections, set them up to win, or lose. So, "know thy government" is a great place to start. (See blog/see links in the blog).
[This Dialogue continued below under the sidebar widget "Really Want Systems Change?".]

Copyright “fair use” doctrine cited USC Title 17 Ch 1 SEC. 107

The "fair use" doctrine allows limited reproduction of copyrighted works for educational and research purposes. The relevant portion of the copyright statue provides that the "fair use" of a copyrighted work, including reproduction "for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is not an infringement of copyright. U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107.